|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 692 Records
-
2010 (5) TMI 885 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f share application money. Since the confirmation letters, copies of Income-tax returns, Pan Number and certificate of the incorporation of the companies were placed on record by the assessee, the identities of the share applicants had been established. Moreover, the payments had been received through normal banking channels and there was nothing to doubt the creditworthiness of the said applicants. Thus, on facts, both the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal have held the said amount to be in the nature of the share application money. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2010 (5) TMI 884 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hree share applicants were borne out by the fact that all the three applicants were private limited companies and were regular income-tax assesses. They had submitted affidavits of their Directors, certificates of confirmation, their Bank Statements, copies of their balance sheets as well as copies of Income-tax returns for the assessment year 2000-2001. Other details such as Pan Number etc. were also clearly indicated. In view of the said information and particulars which were available on record, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal applied the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd 216 CTR 195 and thereafter deleted the said addition. In doing so, it upheld the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). No infirmity in the said decision has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. Consequently, we find that no substantial question of law arises for the consideration of this court. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2010 (5) TMI 883 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... Act and Circular No. 4 of 2002 for the entities whose income is exempt u/s. 10. Section 194A speaks about deduction of tax whereas section 197A(1B) of the Act speaks about non-application of the section where the amount of any income is of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) or the aggregate of the amounts of such income credited or paid or likely to be credited or paid during the previous year where such income exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income tax. In the present appeal, since the income of the University is exempt, therefore, there is no question of deduction of tax at source and also when proceedings initiated u/s 148 were dropped, we find no infirmity in the stand of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). It is upheld. Finally, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court in the presence of learned representatives from both the sides at the conclusion of hearing on 25th May, 2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 882 - CESTAT CHENNAI
CENVAT credit - Employee's Medical Insurance - Employee's Personal Accident Insurance - Held that: - this issue stands settled in favor of the assessees in their own case CCE, Chennai II Versus M/s. Sundaram Clayton Ltd [2009 (10) TMI 893 - CESTAT CHENNAI] which decision in turn relies upon Millipore India Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore [2008 (11) TMI 97 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], where it was held that on above services, the credit remains allowed - credit allowed - decided against Revenue.
-
2010 (5) TMI 881 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... entire cost was adjusted against ex-gratia received from the insurance company and waiver granted by the financiers. The ld. CIT(A) further concluded that in any case for the year ended 31.3.2003, the assessee did not debit any claim nor received any insurance claim nor was any claim for damage debited to the profit and loss account, the claim having been settled in the subsequent financial year. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. The ld. DR appearing before us did not refer us to any material , controverting these findings of facts recorded by the ld. CIT(A). In these circumstances and in the absence of any material before us for taking a different view in the matter, we are not inclined to interfere. Thus, ground no. 1 in the appeal is dismissed 7. Ground nos. 2 & 3 being general in nature, do not require any separate adjudication and are, therefore, dismissed. 8 In the result , appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court today on 24 -05-2010
-
2010 (5) TMI 880 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... absence of any material to indicate that they were profits of the firm, it could not be assessed in the hands of the firm”. 9. In view of the said decisions, it is settled position of law that in case the partners contribute to the capital of the firm, no addition can be made in the hands of the firm. The addition, if any, can be made only in the hands of the partner. The burden is on the partner to explain the source of the investment. We, accordingly, respectfully following the aforesaid decisions of the Allahabad High Court, hold that the A.O. was not correct in law in making the addition in the hands of the firm. If any addition has to be made, that that can be made only in the hands of the partners. The A.O. is free to take action in the hands of individual partners who has contributed the capital. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal field by the Revenue. 10. In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.05.2010).
-
2010 (5) TMI 879 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... ed the Assessing Officer to allow carry forward of brought forward losses of earlier years which were not set off that too after verification of record of earlier years. Section 72 provides for carry forward of losses when such losses are not set off against the income under any other head. The unabsorbed losses must enter the assessment of every following year for ascertaining whether they could be set off against the profits and gains of any business, profession or vocation. It is only when it is found in each year that they could not be absorbed then they are allowed to be carried forward. Loss can be set off against income from any business. Even otherwise, the ITO is supposed to allow set off even if it is not claimed and otherwise allowable, consequently, there is no infirmity in the direction of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). o p /o p Finally, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced in open Court on 28th May, 2010. o p /o p
-
2010 (5) TMI 878 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... sed by the Assessing Officer and the book results were accepted in the order passed u/s 143(3). However, at the same time, since the assessee did not produce the full details and abstained from appearing before the Assessing Officer despite specific instruction given by the Assessing Officer that non appearance may attract ex-parte assessment, therefore, the book results simply cannot be accepted. 12. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and considering the fact that the turnover during assessment year 2005-06 is 10.51 cores as against 6.38 crores during assessment year 2007-08 where the accounts of the assessee are accepted with the GP rate of 11.32 and net profit rate of 1.14 , we are of the considered opinion that adoption of GP rate of 8 for the assessment year 2005-06 will meet the ends of justice. We hold and direct accordingly. Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly partly allowed. 13. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2010 (5) TMI 877 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Valuation - includibility - 'Child Parts' supplied are returned to the revisionist by the suppliers with the parent parts - manufacture of cars - whether the 'Child Parts' are included in the assessable value? - Held that: - The Tribunal without assigning and commenting on the merits of the claim of the revisionist simply observed that the facts of the case does not make out a case for grant of complete or full stay. The basis of recording such a finding is not available in the order. The Tribunal does not even say that no prima facie case has been made out in favour of the revisionist and that he would not suffer any loss or further that the balance of convenience is not in its favor - matter remanded to the Additional Commissioner, (Appeals) NOIDA before whom the revisionist's appeal No. 75 of 2010 is pending consideration to consider and decide the same expeditiously - revision allowed by way of remand.
-
2010 (5) TMI 876 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... n nature hence not seriously contested by the ld. counsel for the assessee, we hereby follow the past history of the case and affirm the view taken by the Revenue Authorities. This is not the case of a Corporate Body but an assessment of an individual, hence, the use of vehicle or telephone for personal purposes should not altogeher be overruled specially when a taxpayer is not in a position to substantiate that wholly and exclusively it was incurred for the purpose of business and no part of it was ever spent for personal purpose. In a situation like this, the Revenue Department has left with no option but to make an adhoc disallowance as it was done in the present case. We hereby affirm the addition in the absence of any contrary evidence being provided by the assessee in his support. Grounds are dismissed. 7. In the result, Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 21st May, /2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 875 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ent. We find that assessee has been following regular system of accountings since last so many years and such method was based on accepted principles of accounting, therefore, there was no justification for rejecting such method for valuation of the stock. Therefore, we are of the view that CIT(A) is justified in his action and our interference is not required”. 5. Admittedly, the ld. counsel of the assessee stated before us at the time of hearing that the assessee is engaged in the business of dyeing and printing of fabrics on job work basis. Therefore, by respectfully following the decision dated 24.03.2010 of ITAT, ‘D’ Bench, Ahmedabad (Camp at Surat) in ITA No. 1061 & 1358/AHD/2007 for the assessment year 2003- 04 (supra), we delete the addition of ₹ 9,03,871/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of closing work-in-progress. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. The Order was pronounced in the Court on 28.05.2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 874 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... espondent Nos. 2 and 3 has informed the Court that the vessel (Wreck) shall be permitted to be taken to the landing place in accordance with law subject to the final assessment being framed in accordance with law. o p /o p 7. In light of the aforesaid arrangement worked out by the parties, the Court is not required to deal with the respective contentions on merits leaving it open to the parties to agitate the same in accordance with law in appropriate proceedings, if need be. o p /o p Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall complete the provisional assessment not later than 14.05.2010 and the petitioners are directed to ensure that requisite formalities, including payment of duty and furnishing of security/bond for differential duty is also completed not later than 15.05.2010. o p /o p 8. In light of the aforesaid arrangement worked out by the parties remaining prayers are not required to be considered and the petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. o p /o p
-
2010 (5) TMI 873 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mphasize the obvious than to elucidate the obscure” To reiterate, we may once again emphasise that after careful scanning of Note (2), the obvious is the date when the vacancy occurs and not subsequent events that might have taken place after the date vacancy had occurred. 22. In fact, this aspect of the matter was duly considered by District Education Officer as also by State Government, who held against respondent No.1. Learned Single Judge had also correctly considered this aspect of the matter and thus, dismissed the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1. 23. Thus, looking to the matter from all angles, we are of the considered view that the impugned order passed by Division Bench cannot be sustained. The same is hereby set aside and quashed, instead the order passed by learned Single Judge is restored meaning thereby that the writ petition preferred by respondent No.1 stands dismissed. 24. The appeal therefore, is allowed. Parties to bear their respective costs.
-
2010 (5) TMI 872 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... reckoned as qualifying years of service only for calculating pension not for continuity of service up to 60 years of age. Rule 29(b) Part III is also, not applicable to the facts of the case, since in this case we are concerned with the question whether the respondent falls within the exception clause (b) of Rule 60. Respondent’s prior service in an aided school, we are informed has already been reckoned for the purpose of calculating pension but the period he has served from 55 years of age to 60 years of age on the basis of court’s order cannot be reckoned for the purpose of pension and other service benefits since he was not legally entitled to get the benefit of Rule 60(b) Part-I KSR. However, salary if any paid to the respondent for the above period shall not be recovered. 17. For the above mentioned reasons, we are inclined to allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the Kerala High Court and uphold the order passed by the Department E-49227 of 2001.
-
2010 (5) TMI 871 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... rpretations were possible. When different interpretations were possible, extended period cannot be invoked and penalty cannot be levied. Therefore, we allow the appeal as far as the demand beyond the period of one year and we also set aside the penalty imposed on the appellants. The matter is remanded to Original Adjudicating Authority for the limited purpose of working out duty demand within limitation period of one year under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. As the Bench has observed that the extended period would not be invoked in cases where the matter is referred to the Larger Bench and has also discussed the effect of the Circular issued by the Board (which has been made the basis for invoking longer period in the present case). By following the same, we held that demand in the present case is also barred by limitation. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed. Stay petition as also appeal get disposed off. (Pronounced in the Court)
-
2010 (5) TMI 870 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ns. We are not concerned with a procedural provision. We have already seen that the assessee had acquired a vested right to have the speculation loss computed for the assessment year 2001-02 carried forward to the subsequent eight years as per section 73(4) as it stood before the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2005. That such a right is a vested right cannot be doubted after the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shah Sadiq & Sons (supra). Since we are concerned with the substantive or vested right, the judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court dealing with procedural provision can have no application. 8. In the result, the assessee’s contentions are upheld and the Assessing Officer is directed to allow set off of the speculation loss brought forward from the assessment year 2001-02 against the speculation profits for the year under appeal. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. Order pronounced on this 31st day of May, 2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 869 - ITAT INDORE
Bogus Share application money - genuineness of transaction not proved - onus to prove on assessee or revenue - HELD THAT:- Since the assessee has discharged its onus by proving the identity of subscribers and even otherwise had any suspicion still remained in his mind, nothing prevented him to initiate action as per the provisions of the Act. The existence of subscribers to share application is not in doubt as the assessee duly furnished their names.
Age, address, date of filing the application, number of shares for which respective applications were made, amount given and the source of income of the applicant.
There is no justification for making the impugned addition because once the existence of the investor/share subscribers is proved, onus shifts on the revenue to establish that either the share applicants are bogus or the impugned money belongs to the assessee company itself.
Once the confirmation letters are filed, no addition can be made on account of share application money in the hands of the company. Our view finds support from the decision in Shri Barkha Synthetics Limited v. ACIT.[2005 (8) TMI 67 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] The case like CIT v. GP International Limited [2009 (12) TMI 33 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT],CIT v. Steller Investment Limited [1991 (4) TMI 100 - DELHI HIGH COURT] supports the case of the assessee.
charging of interest u/s 234B - HELD THAT:- We have found that no specific section has been mentioned for charging of interest and merely it has been mentioned that charge interest if any, as per law.
Since the issue of share application has been decided in favour of the assessee and the addition made u/s 68 has been deleted, therefore, charging of interest is consequential in nature, meaning thereby that it is not leviable/chargeable.
In view of these facts and judicial pronouncements both these appeals of the assessee are allowed.
Finally, the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
-
2010 (5) TMI 868 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case we hold that the assessee is not a local authority entitled to the benefit of exemption us/ 10(20) of the Act. Hence, the common ground of appeal raised by the assessee in all the appeals is rejected.” 7. The facts of the present case being identical to the facts in Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2005-06 and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case relating to Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2005-06, we hold that the assessee is not a local Authority under the amended provisions of section 10(20) of the Act. Accordingly, we confirm the order of CIT(A) and dismiss the ground No. 1 raised by the assessee. 8. The ground No.2 raised by the assessee relates to charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act, which is dismissed being consequential in nature. 9. In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 14th day of May, 2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 867 - SUPREME COURT
Writ Petition Challenging the acquisition of lands for formation of Arkavathi layout on the outskirts of Bangalore by the Bangalore Development Authority [Bda] Under The Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (BDA Act' or Act') - A corrigendum was issued showing the extent as 3889A.12G. A copy of the notification was forwarded to the Bangalore City Corporation and notices were also issued to the persons registered as the owners of the lands proposed to be acquired requiring them to show cause why such acquisition should not be made. After consideration of the representations the authority modified the scheme by deleting 1089.12 acres and submitted the modified scheme for acquisition of 2750 acres in 16 villages to the Government for its sanction. The Government sanctioned the scheme for formation of Arkavathi layout vide Government Order No. UDD 193 MNX 204 dated 21.2.2004. Thereafter a final notification dated 23.2.2004 was issued by the Government of Karnataka u/s 19(1) and published in the Gazette on the same day. The said notification stated that the Government has sanctioned the layout and the lands stated in the Schedule therein were required for the public purpose for formation of the Arkavathi layout. We have repeated the reference to the events in detail to show that there has been due compliance with the provisions of Sections 15 to 19. In fact deletion of some items of land or reducing the extent proposed to be acquired in some items of land, when issuing final declaration is made is quite common and is indeed a result of the process prescribed under any Act providing for acquisitions. The changes and modifications are infact contemplated in the process of making the scheme u/s 15 to 19 of BDA Act.
HELD THAT:- The complaint by appellants is that in the proposed Arkavathi layout, rich and powerful with "connections" and "money power" were able to get their lands, (even vacant lands) released, by showing some imaginary structure or by putting up some unauthorised structure overnight. While we may not comment on policy, it is obvious that deletion from proposed acquisition should be only in regard to areas which are already well developed in a planned manner. Sporadic small unauthorised constructions in unauthorised colonies/layouts, are not to be deleted as the very purpose of acquisition for planned development is to avoid such unauthorised development. If hardship is the reason for such deletion, the appropriate course is to give preference to the land/plot owners in making allotments and help them to resettle and not to continue the illegal and haphazard pockets merely on the ground that some temporary structure or a dilapidated structure existed therein. A development authority should either provide orderly development or should stay away from development. It cannot act like unscrupulous private developers//colonisers attempting development of small bits of land with only profit motive.
Where arbitrary and unexplained deletions and exclusions from acquisition, of large extents of notified lands, render the acquisitions meaningless, or totally unworkable, the court will have no alternative but to quash the entire acquisition. But where many landlosers have accepted the acquisition and received the compensation, and where possession of considerable portions of acquired lands has already been taken, and development activities have been carried out by laying plots and even making provisional or actual allotments. To salvage the acquisition and to avoid hardships to BDA and its allottees and to avoid prolonged further round litigations emanating from the directions of the High Court, a more equitable way would be to uphold the decision of the division bench, but subject BDA's actions to certain corrective measures by requiring it to re-examine certain aspects and provide an option to the landlosers to secure some additional benefit, as an incentive to accept the acquisition. A direction to provide an option to the land-losers to seek allotment of developed plots in lieu of compensation or to provide for preferential allotment of some plots at the prevailing market price in addition to compensation will meet the ends of justice. Such directions will not be in conflict with the BDA (Allotment of sites) Rules, as they are intended to save the acquisitions. If the acquisitions are to be quashed in entirety by accepting the challenges to the acquisition on the ground of arbitrary deletions and exclusions, there may be no development scheme at all, thereby putting BDA to enormous loss. The directions of the High Court and this Court are warranted by the peculiar facts of the case and are not intended to be general directions applicable to regular acquisitions in accordance with law, without any irregularities.
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the directions of the Division Bench subject to the following further directions and clarifications.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
-
2010 (5) TMI 866 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... empowering the Central Govt. to add to or delete the goods mentioned in the First Schedule. The First Schedule is a part of the enactment and only Parliament is empowered to amend the same. This has actually been done on several occasions by the Finance Acts. 11. As the meaning of the term excisable goods used in Section 11D(1) is central to the dispute in this case and as the view which we have taken is contradictory to the decision of the co-ordinate benches in the cases of HPCL, BPCL and IOCL etc. ( vide supra), we are of the opinion that the conflict has got to be resolved by a Larger Bench. Accordingly, we direct the Registry to place the records before the Honble President to constitute a Larger Bench to consider and decide on the following issue - Whether imported, customs duty-paid goods falling in any of the Schedules to the CETA would come within the ambit of the expression excisable goods used in the text of sub-section(1) of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act.
........
|
